get_r_report_queries_get_assets_problem

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method and path, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination behavior, error cases, or what the response contains; 'any required request headers' is an empty placeholder.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the key action and endpoint. The phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls' is awkward and the phrase 'any required request headers' is vague, but there is no unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the large sibling list, zero schema descriptions, and the intentionally generic input schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits what the endpoint semantically returns, how to distinguish it from close siblings, which route IDs are valid, and any authentication or pagination specifics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates somewhat by assigning semantic roles to the generic object parameters: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. It does not, however, name specific keys, value formats, or which IDs are expected, leaving significant ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource via the explicit endpoint `/r/report_queries/get_assets_problem`, so an agent can tell it is a read operation for assets problems. However, it does not differentiate this from the very similar sibling get_r_report_queries_get_assets_by_problem or explain what an 'assets problem' is.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling report-query tools. The instructions about placing route IDs in path_params and filters/pagination in query are about argument placement, not about selection criteria or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.